Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Court of Quebec had to decide whether it has jurisdiction over Fondation de l'Hôpital Lasalle's claim for reimbursement of property taxes allegedly overpaid between 2012 and 2022.
• Ville de Montréal argued that the Tribunal administratif du Québec holds exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the accuracy of the property assessment roll.
• Article 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants the Court of Quebec exclusive jurisdiction over claims for reimbursement of amounts over-collected ("trop-perçu") by a municipality.
• Prior appellate authority, including Ferme A.B. et G. Blackburn inc. c. Ville de Saguenay, supported treating the Court of Quebec as the competent forum to determine whether such a reimbursement claim is well-founded.
• Declining jurisdiction risked leaving the Fondation without any forum to assert its rights, contrary to the rule of law.
• Whether the principle of immutability of the assessment roll bars the claim raises evidentiary issues that the Court found could not be resolved at this preliminary stage.

Facts of the case

Fondation de l'Hôpital Lasalle filed an originating application in the Superior Court on December 3, 2025, seeking $124,124.92 from Ville de Montréal for property taxes it claimed to have overpaid between 2012 and 2022. The claim traces back to a 1992 emphyteutic lease over land that included a parking lot, with a stated area of 15,150 m², rights to which were assigned to the Fondation by a 2001 agreement. In 2012, a public street (43rd Avenue) was created over part of this land, but the property assessment roll was never adjusted to reflect the reduction in taxable area. In December 2022, the Fondation and the Ville signed a bilateral promise of sale under which the Fondation would become full owner of the parking lot land for a price of $2,778,511.43, subject to adjustment based on a cadastral survey. A cadastral plan was prepared in May 2023, and the Fondation acquired the property in April 2024. After noticing discrepancies between the assessment roll and the deed of acquisition, the Fondation contested the roll's accuracy before the Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ). In December 2024, the TAQ reduced the property's assessed value from $12,175,100 to $3,946,000, retroactive to January 1, 2023. In March 2025, the Ville sent notices confirming a corrected area of 11,330.20 m² (versus 15,637.00 m² previously on the roll) and reimbursed the Fondation $63,450.12 for taxes overpaid since 2023. Relying on the 2023 cadastral plan, the Fondation asserted it had also overpaid taxes from 2012 to 2022 because the taxed area included land that had become part of the public domain; it quantified this overpayment at $82,208.47, plus $49,685.68 in interest and additional indemnity, for an amended total claim of $131,894.15. The Superior Court transferred the file to the Court of Quebec in February 2026, after which the Ville brought the motion to dismiss and for inadmissibility that is the subject of this judgment.

Contractual and statutory provisions at issue

The 1992 emphyteutic lease placed the burden of municipal and school property taxes on the emphyteote — the Fondation — consistent with article 1205 of the Civil Code of Quebec. On jurisdiction, article 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the Court of Quebec exclusive jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the Superior Court, over claims for recovery of municipal taxes and for reimbursement of amounts over-collected by a municipality. The Ville relied on article 58 of the Act respecting municipal taxation, which governs how a lot's area is entered on the assessment roll, and on articles 14 and 32 of the Act respecting administrative justice, which assign the TAQ exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning the accuracy of roll entries. The Court also considered the procedural preconditions to a TAQ challenge under articles 124, 130, 134.1, and 138.5 of the Act respecting municipal taxation, and the six-month limitation period under article 586 of the Cities and Towns Act, which the Ville invoked to argue prescription.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Huppé framed the Ville's motion as raising two interrelated issues: whether the Court of Quebec has jurisdiction, and whether the right the Fondation invokes even exists given the unmodified assessment rolls for 2012–2022. On jurisdiction, the Court found that the nature of the Fondation's claim — reimbursement of a tax overpayment — falls squarely within article 36 C.p.c., citing GBI Experts-conseils c. Ville de Montréal and Ville de Terrebonne c. Immeubles des Moulins inc. Turning to the Ville's argument that the TAQ's exclusive jurisdiction over assessment-roll accuracy displaces this, the Court relied heavily on the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Ferme A.B. et G. Blackburn inc. c. Ville de Saguenay, which held that a claim for reimbursement of an over-collected tax belongs before the Court of Quebec even where the underlying assessment rolls were never amended, leaving the question of whether the claim is factually and legally well-founded for that court to decide. The Court noted that accepting the Ville's position would create a jurisdictional "impasse": the Superior Court had already declined jurisdiction, the Court of Quebec would also lack jurisdiction under the Ville's theory, and nothing indicated the TAQ could still be seized given the expired statutory deadlines — leaving the Fondation with no forum at all, contrary to the rule of law and the right of access to a competent tribunal. On the existence of the right, the Court considered the Ville's reliance on the principle of the immutability of the assessment roll, discussed in Ville de Montréal c. Diaco, but concluded that whether this principle bars the claim depends on unresolved factual questions — including the circumstances surrounding the 2012 change and each party's role in the roll not being corrected at that time — that require evidence not yet before the Court. The Court also rejected the Ville's prescription argument, characterizing the Fondation's recourse as one for repayment of an undue payment ("répétition de l'indu"), subject to a three-year prescription period, rather than the six-month period under article 586 of the Cities and Towns Act, which applies only to damages claims for fault or illegality.

Ruling and outcome

The Court concluded that the Fondation's claim is not manifestly unfounded and that the Court of Quebec has jurisdiction over its subject matter, leaving the merits — including whether the Fondation's rights actually exist — to the judge who eventually hears the case on its merits. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Ville de Montréal's motion for dismissal and inadmissibility, with legal costs, and the Fondation may proceed with its underlying claim. This judgment resolves only the preliminary jurisdictional and admissibility challenge; it does not adjudicate or quantify the Fondation's underlying tax-reimbursement claim, which remains valued in the proceedings at $131,894.15 but has not yet been awarded.